---- Richard Heyes <richardh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Greg Donald wrote: > > On 3/12/08, Richard Heyes <richardh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> That's not quite the situation. Finding good developers isn't easy, so > >> lots of companies will go for "acceptable" ones, who are less likely to > >> know of __autoloads existence. Hence, using __autoload is unwise. > > > > A lesser developer should be paid less and should be expected to > > produce less but he should not in any way be allowed to refrain from > > learning. > > I agree. But having worked in the (then) fast paced environment of > online DVD rental, time was not available. Learning always has to happen, even if you don't think it is... Some are just slower then others. > > How long does it take to understand __autoload() anyway? 5-10 > > minutes? > > I would say as long as it takes to read the manual page, which isn't > that long at all. And you have to couple in with that the person's mental capacity for what they are trying to learn, their background, and if they have any other knowledge of the subject. > > You're > > gonna restrict the entire development team from using a given feature > > just because you don't want to invest 20 minutes in getting your > > newbie developer up to spead? That's pure idiocy. > > No it's not. It's not like require_once() is a hassle to type/use > anyhow. Things like editor macros and templates help out enormously and > by using them over __auto load you (a business) could save yourself a > lot of time and hence money. I actually prefer to use a site prepend and append, then in the prepend file is where I throw all my requires and such. pretty much takes care of any learning curve since with the prepended file doing the heavy lifting. Wolf -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
